It's a pretty big, and terrifying, mindset change to go from "death from old age is natural and to be accepted" to "death from old age is preventable and tragic."
But arguably it is natural because .. it's what our organisms are designed to do.
That is, we're not "designed" (I mean by evolution, of course) to have lifespans beyond 100 or so years. We're specifically optimized to have about two or three decades as healthy, independent adults (from age 20 to about 40-50) which are devoted either to (1) raising children or (2) contributing to the welfare of the species or tribe as a whole.
That is -- we're specifically designed and optimized to promote the longevity of the group, not the individual. In fact, individual longevity is explicitly sacrificed in favor of group longevity.
That's just how we're built. And that's what's why longevity research is (apart from all the unknowns) fundamentally different from, say, finding research for cancer or AIDS. The latter group are unequivocal dysfunctional states ("preventable and tragic" if you will), and the basic goal of the research for these cases is to return the organism to it's correct, functional state.
But aging (with its inevitable end state), on the other hand... is the organism's "correct, functional" state. So to find a categorical "remedy" for aging (beyond extending its horizon for a decade or two) is not to merely find the right "correction" for a certain set of dysfunctional states... but to alter the organism's functional nature entirely.
That's why it is categorically a completely different beast of problem than, say, finding a treatment for AIDS. It may also be "terrifying" to our poor psyches strapped into these inevitably self-destructing organisms -- but to the collective goal of our DNA (that is, to promote the group over the individual -- it is also entirely moot.
I think you're ignoring the "to be accepted" part of the text you quoted. Just because something is what we were "designed" for or how we lived prehistorically doesn't make it right or desirable (nor the opposite--in this case fighting aging--wrong or undesirable).
I offer no insight as to whether the finiteness of our lifespans is "right" or "desirable". And I certainly am not saying that fighting aging is wrong or undesirable.
Just that there's a structural reason as to why our organisms are built the way they are -- and a pretty deep structural reason at that.
Really? Just that range? Not sure about your own family history but the vast majority of 50+ and 60+ year olds I know are quite healthy, vital and fully independent, perhaps more so and especially more independent than many people in their 30s and 40s even due to greater accumulated assets and self care. There are many exceptions of course but most people in developed places seem to live quite well and independently into their 70's even these days.
Agree. I'm in my mid 50s; I figure anything more than another 15 years or so is a gift. That doesn't sound like a lot of time in retrospect; thinking about 2006 does not seem like very long ago to me. So there's a growing sense of there not being a lot of time left, and a stronger desire to spend it on simple things that give me satisfaction rather than building more software that will be obsolete before it's really even finished or learning new technologies that will be "legacy" by the time I can really be productive with them.
At the same time I have zero interest in longevity. I will live the life I've been granted, for as long as it lasts. Then I'll get out of the way.
You'd be saying the precise same thing if our natural span was 30 years, or 200. That is, you're using our current state, to explain why our current state exists.
You'd be saying the precise same thing if our natural span was 30 years, or 200.
Well, yeah.
That is, you're using our current state, to explain why our current state exists.
Woah there, that's a big misread of what I was saying.
I'm not using the "state" (the number X of years that is the currently observed natural lifespan) to "explain" the value X. But rather the intrinsic design and function of the system as a whole.
There is nothing "correct", "intrinsic", or "functional" about aging. That's conflating evolution with lack thereof. We evolved to sustain a reproductive cycle and propagate ourselves. That evolutionary optimization has no direct bearing on the specifics of how we age. What we know about aging so far indicates that it's an accidental byproduct of many side effects of the functions of our systems, including the hormonal system that governs puberty, the immune system, the metabolic system, and the higher order DNA management systems (epigenetic programming and replication). None of those side effects are in any known way selected for by evolution, and most of them seem to be tunable to achieve far more durability or regenerative capacity out of our bodies than we are currently used to. Multicellular aging is a collection of random side effects that vary between species - there are many animal species that are effectively immortal.
My point is, you are inside the system, using values from the system, to explain the system.
If humans lived 200 years, but went infertile at 50, you'd be explaining how the system was designed to entice grandparents to care for grandkid's babies, because they were infertile and couldn't have their own, and because it would improve their genetic bloodline's chances.
I still feel much of your reasoning was using what is, to explain why is, because what is.
This response applies both the above and its sibling comment, which are quite valid in asking that I should perhaps clarify further. So if I may:
Yes, our current "operating mode" (with an apparently built-in expiration date at roughly 2x peak fertility) is but one of (infinitely many adaptively stable configurations ("local minima" as it were, in the fitness landscape). It is by no means the only possible (let alone the best possible). As the above comment points out, we can easily imagine other operating modes that are also viable and stable.
But the basic point I was trying to make is: though it isn't the only possible mode of operation for our species -- it is also far from random, and most likely the result of many interlocking tradeoffs in our basic genetic program (which we are just beginning to map out and understand).
The upshot being -- my hunch is that, while we will probably figure out how to tweak some of the dials, attaining a substantially different mode of operation ("longevity for everyone", basically) will require changes substantially beyond tweaking of dials -- or a "patch" here and there. Most likely it will require something akin to a top-down rewrite (or that is, a comprehensive rewrite of many interlocking mechanisms at once). Which will require not only conceptual advances, but to be blunt, "trial and error" (live trials, most of which probably won't work out so well for the test subjects).
That is to say -- qualitatively different from merely deriving a "patch" to our system sufficient to, say, obviate the risk to certain diseases like dementia or cancer.
But arguably it is natural because .. it's what our organisms are designed to do.
That is, we're not "designed" (I mean by evolution, of course) to have lifespans beyond 100 or so years. We're specifically optimized to have about two or three decades as healthy, independent adults (from age 20 to about 40-50) which are devoted either to (1) raising children or (2) contributing to the welfare of the species or tribe as a whole.
That is -- we're specifically designed and optimized to promote the longevity of the group, not the individual. In fact, individual longevity is explicitly sacrificed in favor of group longevity.
That's just how we're built. And that's what's why longevity research is (apart from all the unknowns) fundamentally different from, say, finding research for cancer or AIDS. The latter group are unequivocal dysfunctional states ("preventable and tragic" if you will), and the basic goal of the research for these cases is to return the organism to it's correct, functional state.
But aging (with its inevitable end state), on the other hand... is the organism's "correct, functional" state. So to find a categorical "remedy" for aging (beyond extending its horizon for a decade or two) is not to merely find the right "correction" for a certain set of dysfunctional states... but to alter the organism's functional nature entirely.
That's why it is categorically a completely different beast of problem than, say, finding a treatment for AIDS. It may also be "terrifying" to our poor psyches strapped into these inevitably self-destructing organisms -- but to the collective goal of our DNA (that is, to promote the group over the individual -- it is also entirely moot.